Call to Action

As we approach the year two thousand and ten, we approach the year of the Personhood Amendment. With activity in 32 states, at least one is likely to pass, but fight vigorously anyway to make sure.

But don't let this very important issue mak e you loose track of the bigger picture. Fight for the unborn, yes, but also fight for the poor, the young, the old, the gay, women, et cetera. Fight for free speech, freedom of religion, for the separation of church and state, for school reform, for a more reasonable language (Esperanto), for a more reasonable numeral system (dozenal), and for logical arguments.

Fight against euphemisms, restrictions on freedom, and unequal treatment.

Why abortion is NOT a reproductive right

In order to justify the defense of the wholesale slaughter of millions upon millions of innocent preborn human beings as a stance in keeping with human rights, people will invoke the doctrine of reproductive rights.

Reproductive rights are the rights of others to make informed choices about their reproduction; it is often described as the right to determine the number and spacing of one's children.[1] This differs from (yet overlaps with) sexual rights.

Now, there are two parts to this. First is the right to be informed, which consists of comprehensive sex ed as early and as often as possible.

The next is the implementation of the informed choice, consisting of such things as sexual privacy, the right to contraception, and the right to say no.

A clarification of what reproductive rights do NOT include:

Abortion is not and can never be a reproductive right because it kills an offspring that has already been produced. Humans are a sexually reproducing species, and, like all such species, reproduce through a couple steps.[2] Meiosis produces gametes and the gametes. The second stage, the fusion of an egg and a sperm to create an offspring (fertilization) is where the sexual reproduction takes place.

Abortion takes place after reproduction has occurred, and, as such, cannot be classified as a reproductive right. Even if humans reproduced asexually with a new organism produced at birth, Hyde-esque amendments would not violate reproductive rights for the same reason the Second Amendment doesn't give us taxpayer-funded firearms.

Abortion is not "forced motherhood"; it is the criminalization of prolicide.

As Personhood.net said, "The fundamental human right is the right to life itself. This is true of life from its earliest stage of development until natural death. Abortion, consequently, cannot be a human right—it is the very opposite.".

Fluffy Language

Any position can be made to sound good by dressing it up and dancing around the issue and insulting the opposition.

Those against gay rights speak of "defending marriage" and "protecting children" and "supporting traditional marriage".

Those against youth rights speak of "for their own good" and "parental rights" and "protecting children".

Those against prenatal rights speak of "women's reproductive rights" and "no forced parenthood" and "every child a wanted child" and "deciding whether and when to reproduce" and "Get your laws off my body!" and "Against abortion? Don't have one!".

Those in favor of slavery spoke of "property rights" and "privacy" and "constitutional protections" and "legislating morality".

Those in favor of rape speak of "men's sexual rights" and "no forced celibacy" and "opposing rape is telling those conceived of rape they should not exist" and "the right to one's own penis" and "Get your laws off my body!" and "Do not force your morality upon others!" and "If you are against rape, you are free not to rape anyone.".

Okay, I made that last one up but you get the point. I believe that the personhood movement will ultimately succeed because it forces people to look at the essential issue: Do all human beings deserve human rights?

Choice over Children

The title has a double meaning. The pro-abortion side often claims to only support "the right to choose if and when to have children". Thus choice over whether and when to have children.

However, what this amounts to in their ideology is the right to choose not to have children, after you already have a child. The only way to do this is by homicide. Thus, supporting said choice above the rights of said child.

I support your right to choose to not have children. However, I do not hold said choice over the children themselves, should they be conceived.

Jon Stewart: I think that's definitely where it's dug in from on the pro-life movement and I think on the other side it's "does the government have the right to tell a woman that she cannot make decisions about her reproductive health that she believes are in the best interests of her family?"

Mike Huckabee: She can, but once the decision has been made that results in another human life, then I think that now you have to consider both of those lives: hers and the child's.

I love this response from gomtuu77 of differhonestly.com:

Answer: Yes, government has the right and the duty to tell a woman that she cannot make “certain decisions” regarding her own reproduction. As I’ve said previously, “human beings have equal rights as human beings, and as such, it is reasonable for a society to expect an adult to live temporarily with an inconvenience or hardship if the only alternative is to kill the unborn child.” We do this kind of thing all the time (i.e. restrict the freedoms of other human beings when not doing so would result in the loss of another human being’s life). This is utterly non-controversial in every other area, and quite frankly, it shouldn’t be controversial in this one. Unfortunately, this answer was never given, and they ended up accomplishing almost nothing in the discussion for the reasons I gave previously.

Turning women and their doctors into criminals?

So? By that logic, laws protecting children against abuse turn parents into criminals.

In both cases, they're only criminalized if they violate the rights of their offspring. Parents are not criminalized just for being parents.

I do not see how mothers and their doctors should be exempt from responsibility for their action just because.

Can anyone explain how this is anything more than an appeal to emotion?

Woman to stand trial for pants.

Aren't there, like, international laws against this kind of human rights abuse?

Though, this is not surprising.

Please Join Me in Saying Thanks

Defending Those Who Defend Life

June 29, 2009 Dear reader, This past week 19 pro-life Democrats, including Pro-Life Women’s Caucus member Kathy Dahlkemper (D-PA), sent a letter to Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi to call for an explicit ban on taxpayer funding for abortion in health care reform legislation. These pro-life leaders need our support and gratitude. Please write them today and thank them for standing up for the cause of Life, against their own party leadership. With a pro-abortion majority in the House and Senate, we need the votes and voices of every pro-life Member of Congress, regardless of party. Their leadership is needed in the debate over health care reform to ensure that our tax dollars do not pay for abortions through government-run health care. Protecting women and the unborn should not be a partisan issue – it’s a matter of basic human rights. That’s why its so important to support those pro-life leaders who boldly place principle before politics. Please join me in thanking the Pro-Life Democrats who are leading the fight to protect unborn boys and girls from Nancy Pelosi’s pro-abortion agenda. Thank you for all your efforts on behalf of the unborn boys and girls! For Life, Marjorie Dannenfelser Susan B. Anthony List President 703-875-3370 www.sba-list.org P.S. Please consider supporting the work of the Susan B. Anthony List with a donation today. Click here to help us fight for Life on Capitol Hill! P.P.S. For the latest in Pro-Life News follow the SBA List on Twittertwitter.com/SbaList and on YouTube www.youtube.com/user/sbalist.

A pro-life ______? Who knew!

All political and/or moral philosophies have a common thread of pacifism. This states that it is generally wrong to harm another person. "Person" here refers to a member of your moral community.

Some philosophies have a small moral community, often restricted to one race, creed, nationality, or religion. Others expand their moral community to all living things (though they often ignore the fact that a living thing can be a non-animal). Another philosophy falls somewhere in between, stating that each species is its own moral community, and that every organism has a moral obligation towards its own kind.

Another thing that makes moral philosophies is how lax they are on the "generally wrong to harm another person". Sometimes, violence is allowed if it supports some kind of greater good. Sometimes, violence is never justified.

Sometimes, "harm" is defined very narrowly to physical harm. Sometimes, emotional abuse is thrown in. Still other ideologies (such as communism) see economic exploitation and/or denial of basic services (police, fire station, health care) as a form of harm.

Whichever one of these you subscribe to, the common thread of "do no harm" is there. But what defines a philosophy such as left/right, libertarian/authoritarian is not the scope of the moral community, but the scope of "generally wrong" and "harm". The definition of "person" is more or less up to the individual. Whatever the scope of the moral community, that determines the definition of "person". The definition of "person", combined with the scope of "generally wrong" and "harm", is then plugged into the combining thread of pacifism to determine the application of a belief system.

Because of this, the anti-prenaticide position is compatible with any belief system. This is why you see such groups as Democrats for Life of America, Libertarians for Life, Feminists for Life, the Society of Pro-Life Agnostics and Secular Humanists, the Atheist and Agnostic Pro-Life League, the Pro-Life Alliance of Gays and Lesbians, and others.

Sotomayor

Sotomayor must now be approved by Congress. I love our political system.

Also "sotomayor abortion" is the highest suggested search for "sotomayor ..." on Google.

Great article.

It is delicious article. You must read.

A slightly intelligent pro-abortioner...

Who woulda thunk it?

Of course, gender equality is irrelevant. Gender equality is a noble goal, but not one that may be achieved by any means necessary. Banning infanticide contributes to discriminatory pay for mothers, but most of us agree infanticide is murder.

But, hey, at least they recognize some of the bad arguments.

Notice from SBA List

Comment on New Stem Cell Regulations!

May 12, 2009 Dear reader, A few weeks ago, President Obama signed an executive order authorizing the use of federal funds, your tax dollars, to be used forhuman embryonic stem cell research. This executive order also commissioned the National Institute of Health (NIH) to publish new guidelines for funding research on embryonic stem cells. By law, the Obama Administration must publish these new regulations for public comment until May 26th. Your comments on these new regulations must be read by law! Be sure to submit your comment by clicking here. This is your chance to raise your voice and tell the Obama Administration not to fund stem cell research that destroys human life! While composing your comments please consider making the following points: -I am opposed to your draft guidelines for embryonic stem cell research, which force me as a taxpayer to subsidize research requiring the destruction of innocent human life. Support should be directed to stem cell research and treatments that do not destroy human life and are already proven successful. There is no case under which government support should be extended to human cloning or the creation of human embryos for research purposes. -Embryo-destructive stem cell research has shown to be ineffective and even dangerous, forming uncontrollable tumors and causing rejection problems. Adult stem cells are non-controversial, ethical, and most importantly, effective in treating patients. We should not fund controversial research that destroys human life when we have other options that do not destroy human life. -The proposed regulations do not prevent future funding for embryonic stem cell research that could lead to the creation of clones and human-animal hybrids. This loophole must be closed immediately. Please take this opportunity to stand up to President Obama's order that allows more of your tax dollars to be spent on the destruction of human life. Be sure to submit your comments today. We must have our voices heard on this issue! For Life, Marjorie Dannenfelser Susan B. Anthony List President 703-875-3370 www.sba-list.org P.S. Thank you for caring enough to get involved. Would you please consider giving a small gift to the Susan B. Anthony List to support our Stop the Abortion Bailout campaign? With your help, we can make a difference for Life! P.P.S. Don't miss a thing -- add information@sba-list.org to your safe senders list.

What‽

I was told by a comrade that infanticide is murder, but banning it is misogynist.

Socialist Party USA

I just got a reply. Unsurprisingly, abortion was linked to feminism and defended thusly. I was also copied to the Women's Conference convener and should get another response shortly.

Interesting Essay

Socialism and the Pro-Life Perspective

Appeal to society

This is not a common or official term, but I'm using it to encompass ad populums, ad antiquitatems, and appeals to common practice.

Those attempting to initiate social change often see this. Those in favor of youth rights hear appeals to society frequently. Being against the current state of traditions, social morres, social structures, or society in general is framed as being anti-society, with a negative connotation.

History has taught us that society can be wrong. The Colonists faced capital punishment for High Treason if they failed, but I'm sure my American readers will recognize they did the right thing. Rosa Parks keeping her seat was not immature. The early feminists were fighting against society. They were probably seen as having some sort of pathological disregard for simple social structures. But they were far from evil and any inability to function in the "real world" (i.e., the social structure they were attempting to fix) was not their fault, but that of society.

This happens so often we have a term for it: "ahead of your time". Anyone who is ahead of their time would seem dysfunctional. Imagine if you were transported back in time, or to anywhere with ancient barbaric practices. You may be seen as dysfunctional if you refuse to burn a girl for going to school, or refuse to stone adultresses, or refuse to throw disabled infants into a Spartan cliff, or if you dare to speak out against sexism, or racism.

Those attempting to initiate social change do so of their own free will. No matter how much an opponent may like the status quo, the revolutionaries are "controlling themselves", and do not by default have to be reigned in by The Powers That Be for the crime of Free Will.

White Ribbon

Apparently, the white ribbon is a symbol of the anti-violence against women movement.

...

...wait, there's a pro-violence against women movement?

Etymological misunderstandings

Note to all feminists: before making up a new word, research the etymology of the original.

Here are some common feminist neologisms, and why using them makes you look stupid:

1. womyn
   
2. herstory*
   
3. ad feminam - "Ad hominem" means "to the person". "To the man" would be "ad virum". "Ad feminam" implies women aren't human. How's that for irony?
   

Don't even try "femail" (female comes from the same root as feminism), womanufacture, or "femstruation"!

There are no prefixes "wo-", "hu-"**, or "fe-". If a cow was called a "wobull", or if bovines were called "hubulls" you might have a case.*** Pairs like "(wo)man" and "(fe)male" are purely coincidental (cf. "girl"/"boy") and do not shape anyone's opinion of women or of gender roles in general. Making up words without looking into the etymology of the original, however, makes me think less of you.

Now, I'm not saying you don't have a right to call yourself a "womon"; I have the right to call myself a "rugaflax" if I want to.

I'm just saying, were I to excersize my equal right to call you a moron for doing so, I would be much more justified.

*I know this is just a pun poking at the percieved male-centricity of history. The only problem is that, in most of history, women weren't permitted to do anything important.

**"Human" comes from the same root as "Homo sapiens".

***Interesting note: Many peopleactually use "cow" as gender-neutral like "man" is often used. Is that misandry? No.

EDIT: The etymological origins of the word "feminazi" and its links to Glenn Beck have come to my attention. To apologize for any misunderstanding, here's a webcomic!

PWSA

Just wanted y'all to know I just installed Google Chrome, am using it right now, and it is awesome. Because of that, you won't be seeing any of those annoying extra lines between paragraphs. Download it.

Well, on to today's post...

(Note: see the lack of an extra line)

Democrats for Life of America is urging everyone to support the Pregnant Women Support Act (the one I urged President Obama to support earlier). Regardless of your stance, pretty much everyone want a lower abortion rate. All PWSA does is provide services to pregnant mothers. Yup, no restrictions on abortion or anything like that (though correct me if I'm wrong). Nothing in this bill should offend anyone, except maybe hardcore freemarketers. Visit DFLA's website for more.

Feminism

I noticed NOW is now opposing conscience protection. Conscience protection has nothing to do with ensuring equality for women. Conscience protection doesn't even restrict abortion. It doesn't restrict pro-choice doctors, or even pro-life doctors, from performing abortions. All it does is not force pro-life doctors to perform abortions. Not only that, but the source of the controversy is a rule that merely calls for the enforcement of laws already on the books!

I hate it that feminism has been taken over by Roebots.

Feminism is about affirming the rights of females human beings. Being pro-life is about affirming the rights of unborn human beings. Not only are the two compatible, the two groups overlap! It's not about "the right to choose when to have a child". Men have the same right. You choose by having sex and not using protection. A man does not have a right to kill the unborn child. Nobody has a right to kill the child once the child's existence begins. Once you have a child, you can't choose to not have a child by killing him or her.

Nobody has a right to choose to abuse their child. Feminism is not about letting women do whatever they want regardless of how immoral it is.

 2. [After F. féminisme.] Advocacy of the rights of women (based on the theory of equality of the sexes). (Cf.WOMANISM.)

Statements by the original feminists such as calling abortion child murder can't be dismissed by saying abortion was illegal and dangerous back then. Those are statements of the worth of the child. Not merely stating that the procedure should be avoided, they state that it is morally wrong.

On a related note...

Being a nonpartisan organization does not mean all your members must be nonpartisan. Sarah Palin's membership in Feminists for Life in no way makes them conservative.